Open Letter to Minister of Health
Peter
I have recently received your letter following my election to the
Matukituki Valley District Health Board. I appreciate your
congratulations on my election success. I have taken interest in
health matters for a long time and look forward to being able to
contribute to the good health of the nation.
I am however disturbed and puzzled by the statement in your letter:
"You should read the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and note
your obligation to implement the New Zealand Health Strategy. While
you will bring particular issues to the Board table you are not there
as an advocate but to ensure the best use of the resources provided to
meet the party objectives".
Ms King, if I am not on the Board as an advocate, what am I there for
- a ventriloquist's dummy for the Labour Party? If that is your
attitude Ms King, you can blow it out your ear.
So you are telling me that my sole purpose on the Board is to be
Labour Party fodder for next years election campaign so Ms Clark can
boast how Labour has restored democrratically elected Health Boards
after sacking similar Boards some years ago.
I also see from your letter that the purpose of Health Boards is to
meet Labour Party objectives. Are you meaning that Parliament or
the Ministry no longer has a role in health matters? Looks like that
New Zealand is rapidly heading towards a one party dictatorship. This
is just total arrogance on your part.
I cannot understand it. I thought that a change of Government was
going to be like a breath of fresh air. However all I have seen is
more arrogance from you, Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark in the last
year than what occurred in the whole of the previous decade.
I am not going to take direction from you on how to act as a member of
the Board. I am going to fulfil the duties and obligations of Board
members that tha been traditional in all areas of endeavour in NZ for
many years.
I am going to pursue the plan to pay the private hospital down the
road to carry out heart operations to help ease waiting lists. This
will be more cost effective than the current proposal to build a new
cardiac operating theatre. In any case the latter will probably only
be required for a few years because of advances in other forms of
treatment.
Yours sincerely
Joe Bloggs
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Sun, 09 Dec 2001 09:58:11 GMT, Peter(peterwn-
nos...@paradise.net.nz) said...
> Dear Annette King
>
> I have recently received your letter following my election to the
> Matukituki Valley District Health Board. I appreciate your
> congratulations on my election success. I have taken interest in
> health matters for a long time and look forward to being able to
> contribute to the good health of the nation.
>
> I am however disturbed and puzzled by the statement in your letter:
> "You should read the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and note
> your obligation to implement the New Zealand Health Strategy. While
> you will bring particular issues to the Board table you are not there
> as an advocate but to ensure the best use of the resources provided to
> meet the party objectives".
>
> Ms King, if I am not on the Board as an advocate, what am I there for
> - a ventriloquist's dummy for the Labour Party? If that is your
> attitude Ms King, you can blow it out your ear.
OK Mr Troll, it has already been stated, the letter was mistyped and for
"party" read "policy".
Are you Roger Sowry?
Peter
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Ms King, if I am not on the Board as an advocate, what am I there for
>> - a ventriloquist's dummy for the Labour Party? If that is your
>> attitude Ms King, you can blow it out your ear.
>
>OK Mr Troll, it has already been stated, the letter was mistyped and for
>"party" read "policy".
>
>Are you Roger Sowry?
You are wrong on both counts. I am not Roger Sowry. I have been
posting on nz.politics for a long time, but had to recently change
my handle when my former ISP closed down.
Ms King said that the word was supposed to be 'Government', not
'party' (or 'policy' as you indicated). You cannot therefore claim
that the letter was mis-typed as a career public servant would not
make such a typo. It appears that her mates who are now on the
taxpayers' payroll cannot quite remember who they are working for.
She is also obviously confused as she did not pick it up when she
signed the letter.
She signed the letter, she is responsible for the contents and she is
going to have to live with this one.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:09:40 +1300, DPF(da...@farrar.com)
said...
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 09:58:11 GMT, peterwn...@paradise.net.nz
> (Peter) wrote:
>
> >So you are telling me that my sole purpose on the Board is to be
> >Labour Party fodder for next years election campaign so Ms Clark can
> >boast how Labour has restored democrratically elected Health Boards
> >after sacking similar Boards some years ago.
>
I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
yet again by abolishing DHBs?
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:29:05 GMT, Peter(peterwn-
nos...@paradise.net.nz) said...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:22:11 +1300, Patrick Dunford
> <a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Ms King, if I am not on the Board as an advocate, what am I there for
> >> - a ventriloquist's dummy for the Labour Party? If that is your
> >> attitude Ms King, you can blow it out your ear.
> >
> >OK Mr Troll, it has already been stated, the letter was mistyped and for
> >"party" read "policy".
> >
> >Are you Roger Sowry?
>
> You are wrong on both counts.
Not so.
> I am not Roger Sowry. I have been
> posting on nz.politics for a long time, but had to recently change
> my handle when my former ISP closed down.
>
> Ms King said that the word was supposed to be 'Government', not
> 'party' (or 'policy' as you indicated). You cannot therefore claim
> that the letter was mis-typed as a career public servant would not
> make such a typo. It appears that her mates who are now on the
> taxpayers' payroll cannot quite remember who they are working for.
> She is also obviously confused as she did not pick it up when she
> signed the letter.
Your claim is false.
The following is Mrs King's press release made on Scoop
http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/1e/a8/200112032019.dedbcb30.
html
David Tranter appears to be a troublemaker so such a letter would not be
a great surprise.
Letter to David Tranter
3 December 2001, 8:19 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
3 December 2001 Media Statement
Letter to David Tranter
Health Minister Annette King says National Party health spokesperson
Roger Sowry has it wrong again in accusing her of trying to muzzle
District Health Board members.
Mrs King was replying to a charge by Mr Sowry that she had tried to
"muzzle" new West Coast DHB member David Tranter by writing to tell him
he was elected to the board to meet "party objectives".
"If Mr Sowry wants to be critical of anything, he should actually be
criticising the legibility of my handwriting, not trying to drum up
controversies where even he, with his limited understanding of health
issues, knows none exists.
"The idea of anyone trying to muzzle Mr Tranter, who is one of the
busiest health voices in New Zealand, is absolutely laughable. And Mr
Sowry shows incredible naivete if he actually believes any political
party could get away with telling non-partisan elected board members that
they must follow party objectives.
"Maybe National could get away with directives to their non-elected
boards, but it is a totally different environment now."
Mrs King said she had asked the Ministry of Health for the original copy
of the letter she sent to Mr Tranter.
"My handwriting is probably better than that of most health
professionals, but there is room for improvement. I wrote in longhand the
word 'policy' and this was transcribed as 'party' when the letter was
typed. The letter was signed on my behalf and sent out from Wellington
while I was in Christchurch last week.
"And the word 'policy' quite clearly refers to policy objectives of the
New Zealand Health Strategy, as formalised in the New Zealand Public
Health and Disability Act last year."
ENDS
Peter
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
>yet again by abolishing DHBs?
Patrick D, you jumped down throats a few years ago because people
suggested that Labour was planning radical changes to industrial
relations legislation when it became known that Margaret Wilson (who
was not then in Pasrliament) was working away on new industrial
relations legislation. Patrick, you are now making similar
assumptions about National's health policies.
As I see it elected Boards as set up by Labour are a waste of time.
Labour has seen fit to 'top up' the Boards with its nominees to
neutralise or over-rule the elected members. The Minister of Health
is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
presumably face removal. This is well as appointing chairpeople whno
on most Boards are elected by Board members.
I would hope that a future Government will do the minimum possible
that is necessary to stop decision making being based on left (or
right) wing dogma and improve health delivery. Hopefully so-called
'managers' who know little about health will not be part of any
revised arrangements.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Mon, 10 Dec 2001 03:10:54 GMT, Peter(peterwn-
nos...@paradise.net.nz) said...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:45:31 +1300, Patrick Dunford
> <a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
> >yet again by abolishing DHBs?
>
> Patrick D, you jumped down throats a few years ago because people
> suggested that Labour was planning radical changes to industrial
> relations legislation when it became known that Margaret Wilson (who
> was not then in Pasrliament) was working away on new industrial
> relations legislation. Patrick, you are now making similar
> assumptions about National's health policies.
>
It is actually a question. If you wish to take issue with it, then
provide an answer instead of so much rhetoric.
> As I see it elected Boards as set up by Labour are a waste of time.
> Labour has seen fit to 'top up' the Boards with its nominees to
> neutralise or over-rule the elected members. The Minister of Health
> is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
> presumably face removal.
She has done no such thing, you are a liar.
> This is well as appointing chairpeople whno
> on most Boards are elected by Board members.
>
> I would hope that a future Government will do the minimum possible
> that is necessary to stop decision making being based on left (or
> right) wing dogma and improve health delivery. Hopefully so-called
> 'managers' who know little about health will not be part of any
> revised arrangements.
The boards are a community based adjunct to Government health policy.
Once a government has been elected it decides whatever is the health
policy of the day and that is a fact. If you do not like our democratic
process of government then perhaps you would be more at home in an
Islamic or communist country.
Peter
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
>> >yet again by abolishing DHBs?
>>
>It is actually a question. If you wish to take issue with it, then
>provide an answer instead of so much rhetoric.
I cannot provide an answer, I do not work in National's policy unit.
>
>> As I see it elected Boards as set up by Labour are a waste of time.
>> Labour has seen fit to 'top up' the Boards with its nominees to
>> neutralise or over-rule the elected members. The Minister of Health
>> is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
>> presumably face removal.
>
>She has done no such thing, you are a liar.
The first sentence is my perception and as such cannot be a lie.
In any case if I am a liar, then why does the Act provide for 'topping
up' and the removal of elected Board members by the Minister? The
Local Government Act contains no such provisions.
>
>The boards are a community based adjunct to Government health policy.
>Once a government has been elected it decides whatever is the health
>policy of the day and that is a fact. If you do not like our democratic
>process of government then perhaps you would be more at home in an
>Islamic or communist country.
'adjunct' is the operative word, unlike most other Councils and
Boards, the Health Boards are not mainstream by yours and my
reckoning.
You are right, I do not like 'democratic' government as being dished
out by the Labour-Alliance coalition. I do not like 'democratic'
government where Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson stealthily slip an
obnoxious clause in the Electoral Act. It bit them in the backside
pretty quickly.
Peter
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Ms King said that the word was supposed to be 'Government', not
>> 'party' (or 'policy' as you indicated). You cannot therefore claim
>> that the letter was mis-typed as a career public servant would not
>> make such a typo. It appears that her mates who are now on the
>> taxpayers' payroll cannot quite remember who they are working for.
>> She is also obviously confused as she did not pick it up when she
>> signed the letter.
>
>Your claim is false.
>
>The following is Mrs King's press release made on Scoop
>http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/1e/a8/200112032019.dedbcb30.
>html
>
>David Tranter appears to be a troublemaker so such a letter would not be
>a great surprise.
>
> Letter to David Tranter
>3 December 2001, 8:19 pm
>Press Release: New Zealand Government
>
>3 December 2001 Media Statement
>
[snip]
>Mrs King said she had asked the Ministry of Health for the original copy
>of the letter she sent to Mr Tranter.
>
>"My handwriting is probably better than that of most health
>professionals, but there is room for improvement. I wrote in longhand the
>word 'policy' and this was transcribed as 'party' when the letter was
>typed. The letter was signed on my behalf and sent out from Wellington
>while I was in Christchurch last week.
>
>"And the word 'policy' quite clearly refers to policy objectives of the
>New Zealand Health Strategy, as formalised in the New Zealand Public
>Health and Disability Act last year."
>
>ENDS
>
What an out and out hoot!
She told the 'Dominion' before it hit the presses in the wee hours of
3 December 'The wording is unfortunate. The objectives are the
Government's objectives. The word party should read government. I
missed it. I didn't pick it up in the wording'.
I do not know why she said in her press statement that she had asked
the Ministry of Health for the original copy of the letter sent to Mr
Tranter. There should either be a copy in her office and if not she
could have had it faxed down Molesworth Street within minutes to help
with her press statement.
The most charitable thing that can be said is that some pretty wierd
memory lapses occurred.
It also does not matter whether Mr Tranter is a trouble maker or not.
It does not make the Minister's letter any less obnoxious.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:34:45 GMT, Peter(peterwn-
nos...@paradise.net.nz) said...
> It also does not matter whether Mr Tranter is a trouble maker or not.
Actually it does. He is already causing trouble in the health board that
he was elected to
snip
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:34:30 GMT, Peter(peterwn-
nos...@paradise.net.nz) said...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:55:24 +1300, Patrick Dunford
> <a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >> >
> >> >I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
> >> >yet again by abolishing DHBs?
> >>
>
> >It is actually a question. If you wish to take issue with it, then
> >provide an answer instead of so much rhetoric.
>
> I cannot provide an answer, I do not work in National's policy unit.
>
> >
> >> As I see it elected Boards as set up by Labour are a waste of time.
> >> Labour has seen fit to 'top up' the Boards with its nominees to
> >> neutralise or over-rule the elected members. The Minister of Health
> >> is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
> >> presumably face removal.
> >
> >She has done no such thing, you are a liar.
> The first sentence is my perception and as such cannot be a lie.
>
> In any case if I am a liar, then why does the Act provide for 'topping
> up' and the removal of elected Board members by the Minister? The
> Local Government Act contains no such provisions.
You are lying when you state "The Minister of Health
is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
presumably face removal. " This is false as the Minister has pointed out
the letter was mistyped before it was sent out.
> >The boards are a community based adjunct to Government health policy.
> >Once a government has been elected it decides whatever is the health
> >policy of the day and that is a fact. If you do not like our democratic
> >process of government then perhaps you would be more at home in an
> >Islamic or communist country.
>
> 'adjunct' is the operative word, unlike most other Councils and
> Boards, the Health Boards are not mainstream by yours and my
> reckoning.
You mean they are not independent of the government, like the board of
Air New Zealand or any other entity owned by the government.
Local councils are independent because they own and control the entities
they operate. Health boards control assets owned by central government,
hence they are not independent.
Patrick Dunford
nz.politics on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:28:41 +1300, DPF(da...@farrar.com)
said...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 02:04:57 +1300, Patrick Dunford
> <a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> In any case if I am a liar, then why does the Act provide for 'topping
> >> up' and the removal of elected Board members by the Minister? The
> >> Local Government Act contains no such provisions.
> >
> >You are lying when you state "The Minister of Health
> >is telling elected Board members to toe the Labour Party line or
> >presumably face removal. " This is false as the Minister has pointed out
> >the letter was mistyped before it was sent out.
>
> send it out?
"If".
Kerry
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:45:31 +1300, Patrick Dunford
>>I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
>>yet again by abolishing DHBs?
>
>While having reservations about the very un-necessary changes Labour
>has made, National is not going to pledge to undo things just for the
>sake of it. The health system needs stability and focus.
>
>DPF
>--
And money
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(We) "like to talk about Democracy but, when put to the test,
usually find it to be an 'inconvenience'. We have opted instead
for an authoritarian system *disguised* as a Democracy.
We pay through the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government,
let it push us around, and then wonder how all those assholes
got in there."
-- Frank Zappa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter
(Kerry) wrote:
>
>And money
>
Dr Cullen has been raking in an extra 6c in the $ from some taxpayers
as well as extra taxes due to improving economic conditions (because
of structures in place pre October 1999). This extra 6c was on the
express understanding that it would go to health etc and some affected
taxpayers accepted it on this basis. The Labour Government is only
just getting round to applying it for Health, no doubt because an
election is looming.
Kerry
I certainly don't remember him stating it was for health. When was
this done?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained
by stupidity."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:57:12 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:25:22 +1300, DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:45:31 +1300, Patrick Dunford
>>
>>>>I assume that implies the next National government plans to reform health
>>>>yet again by abolishing DHBs?
>>>
>>>While having reservations about the very un-necessary changes Labour
>>>has made, National is not going to pledge to undo things just for the
>>>sake of it. The health system needs stability and focus.
>>>
>>And money
>
>Indeed and people should think very carefully about whether taking $2
>billion a year from taxpayers to invest on overseas sharemarkets for
>Cullen's Super Fund is really preferable to increasing vote health
>further.
>
>DPF
>--
How much would a national government increase it by?
Peter
(Kerry) wrote:
>This extra 6c was on the
>>express understanding that it would go to health etc and some affected
>>taxpayers accepted it on this basis.
>
>I certainly don't remember him stating it was for health. When was
>this done?
>
He may not have said it personally.
Labour however went into the last election saying that it would sting
rich fat-cats (ie individuals earnoing greater than $60k or so) an
extra 6c in the $ to be spent on health, welfare, etc. Of course
people earning less than 60K would not have minded and there were some
charitable individuals earning over $60k per year who did not mind
either on the basis that the extra money was going to improve the
nation's health and welfare.
Keith Whitehead
peterwn...@paradise.net.nz (Peter) wrote:
They spent it all on welfare.